click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
from edward snowden has gone on to what anyone realize beyond the wiretapping of angela merkel's personal cell phone. it's hard to believe a terrorist would call her up and say i'm a terrorist and just that i would let you know we are going to blow up a building. doesn't sound very likely that they should be doing that. at least that's my opinion. >> host: what do you make of the revolution's overall but the work the nsa is doing and how that either helps or contributes to what the work at the fbi and the cia do? >> guest: well, the fbi is an important agency obviously. it seemed to miss revelations that they've gone beyond what anyone suspected they could be doing. i personally don't think the correction of what they call metadata, which is like every phone call, you know, is not overheard. that seems to me to be going on what his message very. if they have a bad guy, they can go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and put on for a warrant and they'll get a warrant in almost every case. to wiretap that person. they don't need to know that i was talking to my brother
the apology have nodded knowledge that? anyway. >> if you recall the statement from angela merkel the united ,tates, is not and will not listening in on her phone conversations there was never any statement about the past tense. it was current and future. did you know what was going on? known most i would have would have been the security and assessments without saying specifically where they came from. assessmentof some inld be high-level officials you would never know whether that was one arm -- one on one, transferred in conversation, but they do not describe in the reports that we get that so and so's conversation was tapped. that is not the way the report reads. people assumedt there were conversations where they were overheard but it was not as though they come to us we want yout saying all to know that we are listening into conversations. >> you're not going to believe it angela merkel just said. [laughter] >> right. >> it did shock you when you read the report. >> it did. it startles us. when we hear of something that wrong, i don'tso think we ought to be tapping the phone conversati
not learn until this summer that angela merkel's phone was tapped. has the president then get out of the loop? i am not going to get into an internal discussion. the president feels strongly that we are not just collecting information because we can, but because we should. i noted the other day a readout from a phone call that the president had with chancellor merkel. we have and we do not monitor the chancellor's communications. it isroadly, i think worth stepping back and looking at a couple of things. today's world is highly interconnected and the flow of large amounts of data are unprecedented. there are communication methods we had not conceived got 10 years ago we are adapting to. we know innovation will continue. if we are going to keep our citizens and our ally safe, we have to stay ahead of these exchanges and that's what our intelligence community has been doing extraordinary well. these databases are part of the reason we have been able to foil numerous terrorist plots and securitya post-9/11 environment. at the same time, with new capabilities we recognize the need to
for if haven't acknowledged it? anyway. about angelament merkel is that the united states is not and will not be in on her phone conversations. there was never any statement about the past tense. was always current, future. did you know this was going on? you got all of the security -- specifically. i think the most that i would have known would have been the would have been the intelligence assessments. saying specifically where they came from. in other words, it could be say, well, that the source of assessment would be high level officials, for instance, in a country. but you don't know that was one on one or transferred anonymously in conversation. whether it was overheard. the source is -- they don't describe in the reports that we get that so and so's phone was -- conversation was tapped. that is not the way the reports. assumed say that people that there were conversations were overheard but i don't -- it wasn't as though a reporte to us with saying we want you all to know earliesenning in on -- are listening in to conversations of leaders. >> not going to believe w
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)